11 ms·

I have the same reaction every time I read about any cable company, and that's, "WTF are you all still giving them your money for?!" They have a monopoly on a

I have the same reaction every time I read about any cable company, and that's, "WTF are you all still giving them your money for?!" They have a monopoly on a dying service you literally don't need at all, and most people hate having to deal with them. The pricing and contracts are antagonistic to customers. Is it just momentum at this point?

ascagnel_ 8y ago
In the US, cable companies are generally the only source of high-speed internet, and they sometimes charge a higher sticker price to provide internet-only service vs. bundling with TV service.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mywittyname 8y ago
  I get cable internet for $55/mo with no cable packages at all. It's certainly overpriced for what it is, but it's still much, much cheaper than a complete package, which is easily twice that figure.
  - brianwawok 8y ago
    Comcast won’t sell me internet past 20MB without a TV package I don’t have hooked up to TVs. Super awesome.
- rconti 8y ago
  Correct, I finally got tired of playing games with Comcast and I actually pay them more now for 250Mbps internet ($95) than I would for a TV+250Mbps bundle (I think the latter would have been $10/mo cheaper, at least for a year..)
  - soylentcola 8y ago
    This is exactly what I did. When I recently bought my first home, I was already aware that I would have to deal with Comcast if I wanted any semblance of high speed internet service. I could've gotten higher speeds for less (for a year before the price jump) and I could've gotten a lower price (for a year before the price jump) if I bundled cable TV... ...but between the so-called promotional pricing, the dicking around with another pile of box rental fees and assorted add-on costs, I just didn't have it in me. On some level I just decided that I would rather risk "missing out" on some minor bit of savings than buy anything more than the single thing I really needed to buy from Comcast. If I had any other real options I wouldn't buy anything from them. But they are the only option for something I definitely need. I'm not about to pay them for anything more.
- rasz 8y ago
  I think this might be illegal in EU/my country, so my ISP (liberty global) just charges same price for bare internet and internet+200 channels bundle. Cable providers literary make money by giving TV service for free. They sell pre programmed channel spots like supermarket sell shelf space - You cant change channel order :/ plus they track/sell TV viewing data
dragonwriter 8y ago
> They have a monopoly on a dying service Neither the access nor the bundled content portions are really dying. The assumption they must be bought from the same vendor is, but outside of very high speed plans, internet access tends to have data caps (sometimes capped unless you buy a TV bundle from the ISP as well as internet service), and OTT services with comparable content are just as expensive as cable plans (and mostly from cable/satellite vendors, though Google and Sony have services too), so you end up spending the same money plus eating your data cap if you buy separately instead of getting the content outside of your cap (or maybe even getting the content and getting rid of your cap at the same time.)
- cmrdporcupine 8y ago
  Yep, the content providers are 'fixing the glitch' so to speak. With the launch of the new Disney streaming Netflix competitor, etc. we'll be back in a world of silo'd content with bundles and fees and many people who want to do things legit-no-piracy are going to be having to subscribe to multiple services.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - virmundi 8y ago
    Let it go. So consuming. One of the best things of my self inflicted phone ADHD is that I don't care for movies or TV. I start a movie, then think, "This is not worth it". I stop. I never return. Slowly I've come to accept and appreciate not watching TV or movies. If you're into sports, well, I don't know, ESPN online?
    - stephengillie 8y ago
      NFL and other leagues have streaming on their own sites now. NFL is $75/year for all games on-demand.
      - BooneJS 8y ago
reaperducer 8y ago
you literally don't need at all Unless you live in a place without broadcast television, or little broadcast television, and with little to no internet service. So pretty much 20% of the United States. The nation is much larger than the east and west coasts.
- dublinben 8y ago
  Satellite television has been an option for decades, and serves these markets better than cable anyway.
  - josefresco 8y ago
    To be fair, Satellite television providers offer the same "boxes" at inflated prices, complete with multi-year contracts.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      FWIW, my Dish network satellite box is half the monthly rate of my old Comcast cable box, and has twice as many features.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Plus, of the two major satellite providers, one is also a cable company.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  Most of the people living in the US between the coasts still live in urban areas. Only a few states have a minority of urban dwellers: Maine, West Virginia, Mississippi, Vermont. Many large interior states have overwhelmingly urban populations: Arizona (90%), Colorado (86%), Illinois (89%), Michigan (75%), Ohio (78%), Nevada (94%), Texas (85%), Utah (90%). https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-sta...
  - 8y ago
dgzl 8y ago
For the past year, I've been trying to convince my grandparents to ditch cable for internet TV, and the transition has been surprisingly difficult. After two attempts (I don't live near them), I am still not successful, however I did reduce the TV/phone/internet bundle from $250 to $200. Next time I see them, I'm coming prepared with the items that prevented me from succeeding before, and hopefully I'll be reducing them down to antennae/phone/internet. The biggest problem I've found is that the cable company installed their cable modem on the entirely opposite side of the house from where the living room is (where the office is), and the wifi signal is too week to stream video. My general options are either a) get a repeater, or b) try setting up a second internet source from the living room cable (not sure if it's internet ready).
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  Is running an Ethernet cable not an option?
  - scrooched_moose 8y ago
    Unless both rooms are on the first floor above an unfinished basement it usually isn't.
    - rootw0rm 8y ago
      pulling wire isn't rocket surgery.
      - mywittyname 8y ago
        It's a pain if you're going down multiple floors. But if you have an attic or basement, it's generally straight-forward.
- rb808 8y ago
  powerline networking is your friend.
mikeash 8y ago
The allure of channel-surfing and just leaving something on in the background seems to be huge for some people. Getting stuff on demand is great, but it does require a bit of thought.
- adrianmonk 8y ago
  Streaming services probably can and should cater to that more. I think sometimes the psychological aspect of it isn't appreciated. The whole point of plopping down on the couch and turning on the TV is to decompress. It's great that streaming services allow you to choose what to watch when, but if you've been figuring things out and making decisions all day, that's what you want to get away from. Traditional broadcast TV and cable keeps delivering something even if you do nothing. You can override it (by changing the channel or using the DVR), but you need only exercise as much control as you feel like at a given moment.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    There's an unofficial streaming site that treats shows like TV channels, and provides channels for movie genres. Even when I paid for Netflix, it was just so much more convenient to go to the other site because I could click on a show (or the random button) and I'd have something running until I closed the tab. It's really the best format I've seen if you aren't intent on binge-watching a show from beginning to end.
  - soylentcola 8y ago
    This is where sites/services/apps like PlutoTV are great. They're essentially a bunch of streams of mostly low-cost programming presented in a guide-type format. Nothing amazing but it serves the same purpose as basic cable if you just want to watch old movies, MST3K reruns, or cooking shows. Even YouTube can serve this purpose if you get a decent set of subscriptions going and loads of TVs have this built in these days (even if you didn't really want it). For others, there's Chromecast or similar to put these things on the big screen if you don't have a computer or other "smart" device already hooked up.
- cr0sh 8y ago
rayiner 8y ago
It's easy. We've been a cord-cutter household for years, but even I have to admit that an Apple TV + Netflix is a lot more complicated than the old days of flipping the cable box to channel 7. It's not like people have to rent cable boxes. By law, you can get an STB from Motorola or wherever, and a CableCARD for a nominal monthly fee (couple of dollars).
smelendez 8y ago
Cable pricing is designed for people who watch a lot of cable.
ryandrake 8y ago
Cable TV has been annoyingly sticky in my household. I don’t watch it but my spouse does and any time cutting the cord comes up, her requirements are the same: - Access to a specified list of channels she likes - Selecting content should be as easy as on basic cable: type in three numbers on the remote That’s it. I’ve so far failed to find the replacement. If we were to cut cord today we’d still have to subscribe to multiple services to get the mix of content, each service with their own subscription and UI and menus to navigate. So alas we still hang on to basic cable.
megaman8 8y ago
i suspect the remaining customers aren't very price sensitive, and not the type to try something new to lower their bill by a huge amount. the cable companies have realized this and decided to milk it for all it's worth.
Shivetya 8y ago
the issue now is that it is getting very expensive to not have someone who bundles many channels together. I know people bemoan high cable prices but with every content owner coming out with their own channels its going to be expensive to watch.

ascagnel_ 8y ago

In the US, cable companies are generally the only source of high-speed internet, and they sometimes charge a higher sticker price to provide internet-only service vs. bundling with TV service.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mywittyname 8y ago
I get cable internet for $55/mo with no cable packages at all. It's certainly overpriced for what it is, but it's still much, much cheaper than a complete package, which is easily twice that figure.
- brianwawok 8y ago
  Comcast won’t sell me internet past 20MB without a TV package I don’t have hooked up to TVs. Super awesome.
rconti 8y ago
Correct, I finally got tired of playing games with Comcast and I actually pay them more now for 250Mbps internet ($95) than I would for a TV+250Mbps bundle (I think the latter would have been $10/mo cheaper, at least for a year..)
- soylentcola 8y ago
  This is exactly what I did. When I recently bought my first home, I was already aware that I would have to deal with Comcast if I wanted any semblance of high speed internet service. I could've gotten higher speeds for less (for a year before the price jump) and I could've gotten a lower price (for a year before the price jump) if I bundled cable TV... ...but between the so-called promotional pricing, the dicking around with another pile of box rental fees and assorted add-on costs, I just didn't have it in me. On some level I just decided that I would rather risk "missing out" on some minor bit of savings than buy anything more than the single thing I really needed to buy from Comcast. If I had any other real options I wouldn't buy anything from them. But they are the only option for something I definitely need. I'm not about to pay them for anything more.
rasz 8y ago
I think this might be illegal in EU/my country, so my ISP (liberty global) just charges same price for bare internet and internet+200 channels bundle. Cable providers literary make money by giving TV service for free. They sell pre programmed channel spots like supermarket sell shelf space - You cant change channel order :/ plus they track/sell TV viewing data

dragonwriter 8y ago

> They have a monopoly on a dying service Neither the access nor the bundled content portions are really dying. The assumption they must be bought from the same vendor is, but outside of very high speed plans, internet access tends to have data caps (sometimes capped unless you buy a TV bundle from the ISP as well as internet service), and OTT services with comparable content are just as expensive as cable plans (and mostly from cable/satellite vendors, though Google and Sony have services too), so you end up spending the same money plus eating your data cap if you buy separately instead of getting the content outside of your cap (or maybe even getting the content and getting rid of your cap at the same time.)

cmrdporcupine 8y ago
Yep, the content providers are 'fixing the glitch' so to speak. With the launch of the new Disney streaming Netflix competitor, etc. we'll be back in a world of silo'd content with bundles and fees and many people who want to do things legit-no-piracy are going to be having to subscribe to multiple services.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- virmundi 8y ago
  Let it go. So consuming. One of the best things of my self inflicted phone ADHD is that I don't care for movies or TV. I start a movie, then think, "This is not worth it". I stop. I never return. Slowly I've come to accept and appreciate not watching TV or movies. If you're into sports, well, I don't know, ESPN online?
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    NFL and other leagues have streaming on their own sites now. NFL is $75/year for all games on-demand.
    - BooneJS 8y ago

reaperducer 8y ago

you literally don't need at all Unless you live in a place without broadcast television, or little broadcast television, and with little to no internet service. So pretty much 20% of the United States. The nation is much larger than the east and west coasts.

dublinben 8y ago
Satellite television has been an option for decades, and serves these markets better than cable anyway.
- josefresco 8y ago
  To be fair, Satellite television providers offer the same "boxes" at inflated prices, complete with multi-year contracts.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    FWIW, my Dish network satellite box is half the monthly rate of my old Comcast cable box, and has twice as many features.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Plus, of the two major satellite providers, one is also a cable company.
tomjakubowski 8y ago
Most of the people living in the US between the coasts still live in urban areas. Only a few states have a minority of urban dwellers: Maine, West Virginia, Mississippi, Vermont. Many large interior states have overwhelmingly urban populations: Arizona (90%), Colorado (86%), Illinois (89%), Michigan (75%), Ohio (78%), Nevada (94%), Texas (85%), Utah (90%). https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-states https://www.icip.iastate.edu/tables/population/urban-pct-sta...
- 8y ago

dgzl 8y ago

For the past year, I've been trying to convince my grandparents to ditch cable for internet TV, and the transition has been surprisingly difficult. After two attempts (I don't live near them), I am still not successful, however I did reduce the TV/phone/internet bundle from $250 to $200. Next time I see them, I'm coming prepared with the items that prevented me from succeeding before, and hopefully I'll be reducing them down to antennae/phone/internet. The biggest problem I've found is that the cable company installed their cable modem on the entirely opposite side of the house from where the living room is (where the office is), and the wifi signal is too week to stream video. My general options are either a) get a repeater, or b) try setting up a second internet source from the living room cable (not sure if it's internet ready).

radicalbyte 8y ago
Is running an Ethernet cable not an option?
- scrooched_moose 8y ago
  Unless both rooms are on the first floor above an unfinished basement it usually isn't.
  - rootw0rm 8y ago
    pulling wire isn't rocket surgery.
    - mywittyname 8y ago
      It's a pain if you're going down multiple floors. But if you have an attic or basement, it's generally straight-forward.
rb808 8y ago
powerline networking is your friend.

mikeash 8y ago

The allure of channel-surfing and just leaving something on in the background seems to be huge for some people. Getting stuff on demand is great, but it does require a bit of thought.

adrianmonk 8y ago
Streaming services probably can and should cater to that more. I think sometimes the psychological aspect of it isn't appreciated. The whole point of plopping down on the couch and turning on the TV is to decompress. It's great that streaming services allow you to choose what to watch when, but if you've been figuring things out and making decisions all day, that's what you want to get away from. Traditional broadcast TV and cable keeps delivering something even if you do nothing. You can override it (by changing the channel or using the DVR), but you need only exercise as much control as you feel like at a given moment.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  There's an unofficial streaming site that treats shows like TV channels, and provides channels for movie genres. Even when I paid for Netflix, it was just so much more convenient to go to the other site because I could click on a show (or the random button) and I'd have something running until I closed the tab. It's really the best format I've seen if you aren't intent on binge-watching a show from beginning to end.
- soylentcola 8y ago
  This is where sites/services/apps like PlutoTV are great. They're essentially a bunch of streams of mostly low-cost programming presented in a guide-type format. Nothing amazing but it serves the same purpose as basic cable if you just want to watch old movies, MST3K reruns, or cooking shows. Even YouTube can serve this purpose if you get a decent set of subscriptions going and loads of TVs have this built in these days (even if you didn't really want it). For others, there's Chromecast or similar to put these things on the big screen if you don't have a computer or other "smart" device already hooked up.
cr0sh 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

It's easy. We've been a cord-cutter household for years, but even I have to admit that an Apple TV + Netflix is a lot more complicated than the old days of flipping the cable box to channel 7. It's not like people have to rent cable boxes. By law, you can get an STB from Motorola or wherever, and a CableCARD for a nominal monthly fee (couple of dollars).

smelendez 8y ago

Cable pricing is designed for people who watch a lot of cable.

ryandrake 8y ago

Cable TV has been annoyingly sticky in my household. I don’t watch it but my spouse does and any time cutting the cord comes up, her requirements are the same: - Access to a specified list of channels she likes - Selecting content should be as easy as on basic cable: type in three numbers on the remote That’s it. I’ve so far failed to find the replacement. If we were to cut cord today we’d still have to subscribe to multiple services to get the mix of content, each service with their own subscription and UI and menus to navigate. So alas we still hang on to basic cable.

megaman8 8y ago

i suspect the remaining customers aren't very price sensitive, and not the type to try something new to lower their bill by a huge amount. the cable companies have realized this and decided to milk it for all it's worth.

Shivetya 8y ago

the issue now is that it is getting very expensive to not have someone who bundles many channels together. I know people bemoan high cable prices but with every content owner coming out with their own channels its going to be expensive to watch.